What he means is that once you remove the thumb hole stock and put a non thumb hole on it, you are in violation.

To correct that, it needs to have 5 US made parts of the listed ones (not all parts are listed, so it has to be relevant listed.)

If the stock is US made you have 3 of the require parts.

The easiest next step is a US made magazine as that accounts for 3 parts (the shell, floor plate and follower and the spring does not count which is an example of the bureaucracy aspect, but it is what it is)

You can also change the firing group but the MAK has the best one there as is the piston etc.

Adding a US rail or sight does not count as its not part of the core parts that are required (listed) as what constitutes the gun pr 9.22 (and I forget the rest of the numbers).

He means that since it's a Clinton-era gun, it had to comply with the silly AWB rules of the time, including having a "thumbhole" stock and probably no flash hider, among other things. He made it a proper MAK.

In this case you do have a serious issue with compliance as the gun has been pushed into the illegal modification of a gun category unless the right parts count with US origin has been used. Not likely to be caught of course.

A proper MAK of that era is as is, warts and all and my take is that it should be preserved.

What he did was changed it to look like a tactical AK47 (certainly fine and no issues with that, its his gun but I also believe you should be informed before you do that for the legal aspects as well as historic value).

The MAKs have an inherent value as they were unusually and a high quality underpinnings (maybe e solid would be better as the term quality is somewhat iffy with AKs, function and reliable yes.)

While I do plan to get a good stock on mine, its for function not appearance. No plans to add a bunch of stuff to it, but thats me and my take.

I will keep the thumb-hole as someday it will be sold and thats part of its intrinsic value as well as history (good or bad).

The wrong changes and you can't go back and then its a modified MAK and for whatever that sells for.

I do think for something historic, be it an old car of gun you should always think seriously about what you do to them. Some are never going to be worth much, others like the MAK appear to have a value in and of themselves. Once something is changed and you can't go back its lost and that can be a shame. I think the MAK is in that transition period.

Cutting the ears off a Model of 1917 receiver is not in that place, though it was a very reasonable thing to do when there were millions of them around. I don't think anyone should do it now, but again thats me and my take

I had a gunsmith install a synthetic "dragunov" stock and gas tube optic mount on mine. At my insistence, he replaced the required parts to make the rifle 922r compliant, although he said that was probably unnecessary due to the Dragunov's similarity to a thumbhole stock.

__________________
The soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as the prisoner's chains. Dwight Eisenhower

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.